In slamming Mexico with a high reciprocal tariff—which has now been suspended for 90 days—the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, did not take into consideration the provisions in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which precludes member countries from being levied tariffs on certain products.

Upon discovering the breach, Mexico pointed it out to the US, and promptly, the concern was addressed with the USMCA exemption recognized and the aberration corrected.

Like the USMCA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), introduced in 2000 under President Bill Clinton’s administration, grants African countries exemptions from paying tariffs on some items exported to the US.

With the 10% across-the-board tariff that the US has imposed on all her trading partners worldwide—and the reciprocal tariffs (currently paused for three months) that raised tariffs on Nigerian goods to 14%, and up to 50% for a small African country like Lesotho—the US may have breached the AGOA pact with Africa.

So, the question is: has Africa, like Mexico, approached the US to inform her that the AGOA arrangement has been breached, so that an adjustment can be made accordingly, in the same manner that a similar breach of USMCA was addressed when it was brought to the US’s attention?

That task squarely falls within the purview of the African Union (AU); it is a responsibility that rests directly on its shoulders.

If peradventure, Africa has not yet made that move via the AU, the 90-day pause announced by President Trump is a veritable window for the pan-African organization to engage with the relevant authorities in the US to resolve the matter.

That said, at this juncture, it is appropriate that we take a look at Africa’s uninspiring place in the world order and try to figure out how to reposition the continent to become a more active player in the new global trade framework being reshaped by President Trump through his sweeping tariff changes.

In identifying Africa’s place in the new world trade order being unfurled and wrought by President Trump—through trade tariffs that have disrupted global trade in ways that may become unrecognizable to old-school aficionados—it is imperative to put the unfolding scenario in historical context.

As we all would agree, from the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 where Africa was partitioned among European powers, to today’s Africa where the likes of Tony Elumelu, chairman of UBA/Heirs Holdings is promoting Africapitalism (a vision for African entrepreneurs to develop the continent by intentionally investing in its abundant resources to bring prosperity to communities), European exploration and exploitation of Africa has a long and complex history.

For a deep dive into how entrenched the European and other superpowers’ interests in Africa have become, here is a breakdown of key historical milestones:

Going back to the Ancient Era, the Phoenicians—a civilization from the eastern Mediterranean—are believed to have explored North Africa and possibly even circumnavigated the African continent around 600 BC. It is believed they established colonies, with Carthage being the most notable.

In the Medieval Period, during the Viking expeditions of the 9th century, North African Mediterranean coastal towns were also raided.

Then came the Portuguese explorers in the 13th–14th centuries. Genoese navigators such as Vandino and Ugolino Vivaldi attempted to find a sea route to India around Africa in 1291. Thereafter, Jaume Ferrer sailed down the West African coast in search of the legendary “River of Gold” in 1346.

That expedition was followed by the Age of Discovery explorations in the 15th century when the Portuguese—led by Prince Henry the Navigator—pioneered maritime exploration. That was when explorers like Bartolomeu Dias reached the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, and Vasco da Gama successfully navigated to India via Africa in 1498. All of the above is what many of us learned in European history classes during our formative years in school, right? One is going down memory lane because to truly understand the marginalization of Africa in the scheme of things by the rest of the world, we must recall and place these historical realities in perspective.

It was not until much later that other European powers such as the Dutch, English, French, and others soon followed, establishing trading posts and colonies along the African coast.

In light of the above and based on historical records, European exploration of Africa’s interior did not gain momentum until the 19th century, with explorers like David Livingstone and Henry Morton Stanley mapping the continent’s geography and “discovering” new regions.

For this discourse, we will stay focused on the exploitation of the African continent by foreign invaders since the time of Livingstone et al.

Following the arrival of European explorers in Africa in the 19th century, and especially after World War I, the continent has been actively and continuously pillaged by fortune seekers from other continents—particularly Europe, North and South America, and Asia.

Specifically, Africa’s exclusion from productive trade was entrenched as far back as 1884/85, when then-German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck hosted the Berlin Conference, during which European powers carved up Africa without inviting a single African representative to the table.

After the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade—which occurred between the 16th and 19th centuries, during which roughly 10–12 million Africans were shipped as slaves to the Americas in a trading system where African slaves were exchanged by Europeans for American products such as coffee and sugar, which were then shipped back to Europe—these Western powers transitioned from being slave traders to colonizers.

Unsurprisingly, the European colonizers lingered to further extract solid and rare earth minerals abundant in Africa—an unfair trade practice that remains in play to this day.

Unlike the countries in the Southern Hemisphere, which the Europeans were also scrambling to colonize but which were fortunate enough to benefit from the ‘Big Brother’ protection of the Monroe Doctrine—a U.S. foreign policy enacted in 1823, wherein then-President James Monroe prohibited further European colonization of countries in the Western Hemisphere—Africa was left unprotected. As such, the continent remained exposed to the insatiable greed of European powers.

The original version of the Monroe Doctrine also prohibited the marauding Europeans from further colonization of other countries universally including other hemispheres, particularly Africa. 

But it was then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams citing a lack of capacity to enforce the law globally that advised President Monroe to confine the proclamation to the Western hemisphere which was near. Otherwise, perhaps the Europeans would have been discouraged from partitioning and colonizing Africa in 1844/5 in the manner they did, as it occurred over 20 years after the Monroe Doctrine was instituted.

With no ‘big brother’ protecting Africa, the Europeans greedily ravaged Africa and the exploitation has been so overwhelming that countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)—blessed with abundant rare earth resources needed for manufacturing high-tech products—owing to unbridled exploitation have remained ground zero for armed conflicts. Even fellow African countries like Rwanda have joined the scramble for Congo’s resources, which have been exploited continuously for at least a century. The scenario described above is a classical case of unfair trade. 

Incidentally, the justification for President Trump’s ongoing tariff war includes not only an effort to stem the illicit drug fentanyl from entering the U.S. but also to correct what he considers unfair trade practices by the rest of the world against the United States. So, with its economic and military clout as the world’s global hegemon, and under the leadership of a bold and unorthodox President Trump—who was voted into power based on his reputation as a change agent, although a political outsider—the U.S. is using tariffs to fight for balanced trade with its partners.

But from the narrative about trade between Africa and other continents, as earlier highlighted, it is disheartening and disappointing that Africa has been a perennial and perpetual victim of unfair trade. Sadly, the continent lacks the clout to fight for itself, as the U.S. is currently doing.

Operating in an unstructured—and some may say ungoverned—environment, where six (6) countries (Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, and Sudan), mostly located in the Sahel region, have reverted from democratic governance to military dictatorships, forging a common front to assert herself as a unified continent has remained a mirage since the time of the founding fathers of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)—Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, among others—who convened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963.

Although the OAU was later renamed the African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa in 2002—likely inspired by the somewhat successful European Union (EU)—the change was largely nominal. The continental body has never been able to transform Africa into a powerful trading bloc like the EU.

Instead, the continent has remained a mere source of raw materials and not a producer of value-added products that could have engendered prosperity for its people when it becomes the new manufacturing hub for the US.

Perhaps the recently formed African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) will make a difference by triggering the desired positive change.

In a previous article titled “What If President Trump Wants to Shift From Aid to Trade?”, I explored the possibility that Trump might replace aid to Africa—which he has begun to roll back—with trade. I argued that Africa needs trade, not aid.

That prospect is not far-fetched. The continent is increasingly being seen by forward-thinking investors as the next frontier for development. But with trade between industrialized nations now restricted by Trump’s tariffs, one wonders:

Will Africa become the dumping ground for goods that advanced economies can no longer trade among themselves?

If so, would this not further hinder industrialization on the continent? On the flip side, could this trade standoff prompt the U.S. and others to manufacture in Africa instead of relying on China and Vietnam—countries hit by the heaviest tariffs?

Given Africa’s closer proximity to the U.S. via the Atlantic Ocean (compared to Asia via the Pacific), the continent—especially Nigeria—could become a strategic manufacturing base. This possibility gains weight with the U.S. currently building its largest embassy in the world at Eko Atlantic, located on the shores of Bar Beach–Atlantic Ocean in Victoria Island, Lagos.

Signs of a Strategic Shift

The recent appointment of Mr. Massad Boulos, former Group Managing Director of SCOA Nigeria Plc, as Senior Special Adviser to President Trump on Africa affirms growing optimism that Africa will be a focal point for U.S. economic cooperation.

My self being a board member of SCOA Plc and chairman of its Audit Committee since 2012, I can guarantee that Mr. Boulos is a veritable asset to the U.S. and will make a great and positive impact for the benefit of both the U.S. and Africa. He knows the continent inside out, having worked with the SCOA Group—an organization that has existed for nearly a century with a massive Africa-wide footprint.

Already, Mr. Boulos has initiated meetings with the Presidents of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria to promote peace in conflict zones and foster mutually beneficial economic partnerships.

For too long, as earlier stated, Africa has been sidelined in global trade value chains—operating on the fringes due to unfair trade practices entrenched during the colonial era, which saw the continent become an extension of European empires.

Even after gaining political independence, beginning in the mid-1950s, Africa has remained marginal in global trade—accounting for less than 3% of global trade volume.

Yet Africa is resource-rich:

 • 30% of the world’s mineral reserves

 • 40% of global gold reserves

 • 90% of global platinum and chromium

 • Over 10% of global oil reserves

 • 65% of the world’s arable land

 • 60% of the world’s uncultivated fertile land

 • A population of 1.539 billion as of March 2025, representing 18.83% of the global population (estimated at 8.1 billion)

If Africa is to thrive in the emerging world order, it must seize this moment not as a threat, but as a strategic opportunity to renegotiate its place in global trade—by adding value, fostering local production, and becoming an active partner in global manufacturing and economic integration.

Using the recently released Forbes list of billionaires for 2025 as a barometer of Africa’s global standing, there are a record 3,028 billionaires on this year’s list. Their combined wealth totals a record $16.1 trillion. Yet, only twenty-three (23) of them are Black. Alhaji Aliko Dangote remains the richest Black man on earth. Other Nigerians on the list include Chief Mike Adenuga, Alhaji Samad Rabiu, and Mr. Femi Otedola—who all reside in Nigeria—while Mr. Bayo Ogunlesi and Mr. Tope Awotona, also Nigerians, live outside the continent.

The 23 Black billionaires account for just 0.8% of the total wealth of the world’s 3,028 billionaires. Effectively, less than 1% of the world’s billionaire wealth is held by Black individuals—and even less by Africans living on the continent.

Based on Forbes figures, these 23 Black billionaires have a combined wealth of only $96.2 billion—less than $100 billion—a mere drop in the ocean compared to the $16.1 trillion owned by the remaining 3,005 billionaires, mostly in industrialized and advanced societies.

Apart from its vast mineral wealth, Africa holds a global comparative advantage in agriculture. However, subsidies provided by industrialized nations to their farmers significantly neutralize any potential gains for African producers. For instance, eggs that were once produced in excess in the U.S. used to be dumped locally or even thrown into the ocean during gluts, rather than being exported to famine-stricken areas in Africa—especially in the Horn of Africa—where people have died from hunger-related diseases. Ironically, the U.S. is now experiencing an egg shortage. Hopefully, when the egg surplus returns, the U.S. will remember to ship excess produce to Africa, where the need is dire. This is especially critical given that the continent is increasingly unable to feed itself due to unfair global trade practices orchestrated by powerful players in the developed world.

Against the backdrop of Trump’s ongoing reciprocal high-tariff upheavals, one might have thought this would be an opportunity to bring Africa more squarely into the global trade framework—especially now, as a new world order seems to be emerging under Trump.

Take, for example, the case of avocados. High tariffs imposed on Mexico—currently the largest supplier of avocados to the U.S.—have created a supply gap. Africa, also a major grower of avocados, could potentially fill that gap under a tariff-free framework such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), introduced by President Bill Clinton in 2000. AGOA significantly boosted trade between the U.S. and Africa’s 54 nations.

Unfortunately, that might no longer be the case. That is because as earlier noted, AGOA which has been in practice for 25 years seems to have been sidelined under the current administration’s reciprocal tariff regime. Unless the seeming breach is rectified.

What remains Africa’s biggest handicap in becoming a manufacturing hub for U.S.-bound exports is the lack of infrastructure. This, coupled with financing deficits and debt traps, has made the continent less attractive compared to Asian countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand, which are now thriving manufacturing hubs serving the U.S. market. Vietnam, for instance, has been hit with tariffs as high as 46%.

The industrialization of these countries is the result of a ripple effect—an economic radiance originating in Japan and China, spreading outward to nations like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These countries now orbit as stars around the moons of Japan and China within Asia’s industrial ecosystem.

The U.S. could intentionally choose to industrialize Africa. The continent’s lack of industrial capacity underscored by energy insecurity could be mitigated by fixing its chronic electricity shortages. Africa possesses abundant untapped energy potential—from hydropower and solar to wind and biomass—even without considering nuclear power. Elon Musk has already developed battery pack technology capable of powering entire cities, tested successfully in Australia. Why not introduce it to Africa?

While the world is in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Africa missed out on the first two. However, the continent caught up during the third—the telecoms revolution—by skipping telephone landlines and going straight to mobile technology, thanks to GSM. Similarly, Musk’s super battery packs could revolutionize Africa’s power sector in much the same way.

These are ideas worth considering by President Trump, the leader of the world’s most powerful and wealthiest nation, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man.

During this tariff war, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, made the following remarks at a Commonwealth event in London on March 31:

 “Amidst all this turbulence, what is still good is that there is still $24 trillion of goods trade. The U.S. accounts for 13–16% of world exports, and China 15%. If 75% of trade is still going on outside the U.S. and China, it means there’s a world out there trading within itself, coming together to reaffirm support for the system. So, take a deep breath—let’s preserve what works… But when you throw out retaliation, it just goes back and forth.”

Her non-retaliatory stance appears to be the most pragmatic way forward.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed this sentiment after President Trump announced the new tariffs in the White House Rose Garden, urging affected countries not to engage in tit-for-tat retaliation. The nations that heeded his advice had the tariff paused so it is only China that retaliated with a 125% tariff against the US the 145% has been operationalized.

To lend my voice, I believe EU President Ursula von der Leyen should prioritize dialogue with President Trump and his team—who are intent on remaking the global trade order—instead of adopting a combative stance. The objective should be mutual compromise.

President Trump does have a valid argument when he claims that the U.S. has been exploited through trade imbalances and security expenditures—particularly in its relationships with Europe. The high reciprocal tariffs, according to him, are a correction of those long-standing disparities.

Even Jens Stoltenberg, the immediate past NATO chief, acknowledged that Trump’s tough stance during his first term prompted most NATO members to meet their financial obligations—a clear “Trump effect.”

From a global security perspective, one could argue that the U.S., as the longstanding global hegemon, has carried the burden of maintaining world order—which may have justified its earlier trade concessions. President Trump is now reversing those concessions.

After the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russia—the main remnant—has struggled to match U.S. dominance in either economic or military terms. The Cold War, which once divided the world between a communist East and a capitalist West, ended with the U.S.-led West as the undisputed superpower.

Now, China—currently the world’s second-largest economy—is consolidating its regional power. It has reclaimed Hong Kong from the UK, and now eyes Taiwan, which claims independence. One would think China would first solidify control over its region before challenging the U.S. on the global stage. While President Xi Jinping has extended olive branches to neighboring nations like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia through a “neighborhood diplomacy” initiative, tensions with Taiwan have escalated lately, as evidenced by a recent military maneuver.

Still, against all odds and perhaps out of national pride, China has stated that while it won’t raise tariffs further, it is not afraid and in my view, it appears it remains open to negotiation.

In the meantime, the U.S.—unopposed in its superpower status—continues to shape the world according to its vision. Nevertheless, President Trump has paused his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, ostensibly to allow room for negotiations by the over 60 nations hit with the reciprocal tariffs. While some critics argue he panicked due to the negative bond market and ordinary people's reactions, I believe he’s acting strategically—seeking a win, not a war without an end.

All said and done, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is originally from South Africa. Morally, he should fight for Africa, leveraging his immense wealth and global influence. Given his concern about land disputes in South Africa, it’s clear Musk cares about the continent. All he needs to do is broaden his scope to include the “rainbow coalition” (black and white people) across Africa—widely recognized as the world’s next frontier.

If Tony Elumelu can commit $100 million in ten years through his foundation, TEF to empower African youth across 54 countries with entrepreneurial skills and start-up seed money, there’s no reason why Musk cannot dedicate $1 billion to provide electricity to Africa—powering industrialization and creating new prosperity on the continent of his birth.

After all, Africa—as economists have confirmed—is not an aid case. It is a land of untapped potential.

The bottom line is this: Africa needs industrialization and trade, not aid. And both President Trump, leader of the world’s most powerful country, and Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man, can make it happen.

Musk has already explored the unknown in space with his SpaceX program. Now it’s time to explore Africa—for real, and for good.

I would like to conclude by restating the fact that, Africa beckons President Trump and Elon Musk.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, and author.

Governors elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are currently meeting in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, to deliberate on pressing national issues.

The meeting is being held at the Executive Chamber of the Governor’s Office, Agodi Secretariat, Ibadan.

In attendance are Governors Bala Mohammed (Bauchi), Peter Mbah (Enugu), and Agbu Kefas (Taraba).

Others present include Dauda Lawal (Zamfara), the host Governor Seyi Makinde (Oyo), Caleb Mutfwang (Plateau), Umaru Fintiri (Adamawa), Ademola Adeleke (Osun), and Douye Diri (Bayelsa).

Governor Sheriff Oborevwori (Delta) and Governor Umo Eno (Akwa Ibom) were represented by their deputies.

Notably absent from the meeting is Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara.

[Opinion Nigeria]

The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) launched decoy websites as part of a sting operation to expose examination fraud, successfully trapping 180 candidates who paid for leaked examination items and score augmentation ahead of the 2025 UTME.

The Registrar of JAMB, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, made this known during a press briefing in Bwari, Abuja, following a monitoring visit to a Computer-Based Test (CBT) centre.

The board created fake websites that mimic those operated by fraudsters.

These sites were intended to divert and identify candidates attempting to cheat their way through the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) and Direct Entry admission process.

“JAMB has identified no fewer than 180 candidates who have paid amounts ranging from N30,000 and above to these fraudulent sites in exchange for non-existent services, such as “leaked examination items” and score augmentation.

“These sites are traps designed to reduce the growing incidence of fraud and corruption among the nation’s youth,” Prof. Oloyede said.

Sanctions await offenders 

According to the Registrar, candidates found guilty of engaging with these decoy platforms will be sanctioned in accordance with existing rules on examination malpractice.

“These candidates will face sanctions that may include the cancellation of their UTME and Direct Entry results, as well as potential legal prosecution,” Prof. Oloyede said.

• He reiterated that JAMB has a legal mandate to regulate the UTME and Direct Entry admission processes and will not tolerate actions that undermine its integrity.
• Prof. Oloyede also emphasized the Board’s continued efforts to enhance transparency and security through innovation. He noted that the 2025 Mock-UTME, held earlier this year, served as both a preparatory exercise for candidates and a testing ground for JAMB’s latest technological improvements.

“The mock exercise allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of newly introduced measures aimed at improving examination conduct and security. 

“Each year, as we implement new strategies to combat examination malpractice, fraudsters also adapt their tactics. Therefore, we must consistently stay one step ahead,” they said

Warning to schools and candidates 

Prof. Oloyede reminded schools and the general public that the UTME is not a school-based examination and warned against placing undue pressure on students to achieve high scores by any means.

“Educational institutions must abandon the pursuit of ‘high-score glory’ and encourage students to focus on their studies,” he said.

Candidates have been cautioned to steer clear of platforms offering unrealistic promises of success, as the Board has vowed to take strict action against anyone involved in or supporting examination malpractice.

[Nairametrics]

Popular Nigerian singer Kingsley Okonkwo, also known as Kcee, has disclosed that he achieved financial success before his younger brother, Emeka Okonkwo, aka E-Money.

According to the singer, his billionaire businessman used to be his manager, but now has more money than him.

Kcee disclosed this during a recent appearance on the Tea With Tay podcast. He stated that he was  among those who sponsored E-Money’s wedding.

He reflected that if he had channeled the same level of dedication to business as he did to music, he would have been richer..

Kcee said, “E-Money used to be my manager. When I blew up as KC-Prech, he used to be our manager. I made money before him. I was among those who sponsored his wedding. Then he started making money, making more money.

“The number of years I have put into music, if I had put into a business, I would have been ten times richer than I am. E-Money has businesses that consistently bring in returns. But we as artists, we live flashy lives… Sometimes, a hit comes, sometimes, a hit doesn’t come.

“Having said that, my relationship with E-Money goes way back. My mum told me that when he was born, I held his hand and shed tears of joy. I stayed with baby E-Money at the hospital for three days… Growing up, it was always me and him.

“The relationship grew so big and strong that I started shouting ‘E-Money’ in my songs. I named him E-Money. I used to be K-Money, there was P-Money (which is Prech), then there’s E-Money. Then, he was our manager, he wasn’t wealthy. We called the money into existence. And when the money came, he continued to be known as E-Money. On my songs, I was shouting ‘E-Money’; most people thought I was the E-Money until he started gaining visibility.”

The singer said some people have approached him, asking him to stop promoting his brother E-Money in his songs, fearing that E-Money may become more popular than him. However, he refused to be jealous.

[NaijaNews]

The FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, has approved a new, comprehensive reform on land administration in the nation’s capital.

The new policy, which Wike said, was targeted at more revenue for the FCT Administration, is expected to become effective from April 21.

Chijioke Nwankwoeze, the director, FCT Land Administration Department and Lere Olayinka, the FCT Minister’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication & Social Media, announced the minister’s approval of the new policy.

What you should know about the new policy

Under the new reform, the period within which to erect and complete developments on any land granted in the FCT is now two years from the date of the commencement of the Right of Occupancy (RofO).

This means that any land not developed within two years of receiving the R-of-O will be revoked.

The new reform also stipulates that land allottees now have 21 days from the date of offer, to make full payment of all bills, fees, rents and charges prescribed on offers of Statutory Rights of Occupancy and submit a duly completed letter of acceptance alongside evidence of payments, or lose the offer.

 With this, any R-of-O bills and any other payments made outside the stipulated 21 days shall be considered invalid while any land granted should be developed within two years.  

 On lands previously allocated by area councils, the law stipulates that all lands in the FCT are urban land and it becomes necessary that all land documents issued by the area councils are considered for regularisation to statutory titles in line with relevant statutes.

The minister recalled that in 2006, the Zonal Land, Planning and Survey offices of the six area councils were directed to submit all area council allocation lists, layouts, files and registers to Abuja Geographic Information System (AGIS)/Lands Department, and this was done by the area councils.

He said, ‘’However, to date, out of the 261,914 area council land documents submitted for regularisation, only 8,287 have been vetted, out of which only 2,358 were cleared, validated and regularized to statutory titles. The 8,287 were vetted from 2006 to 2023 (17 years), and this represents just 3.2% of the total land documents submitted for vetting and regularisation. As at today, the FCT Administration is still left with 253,627 submissions in its database.

‘’Area Council land documents successfully vetted and confirmed would have statutory titles on such lands issued and the allottees will have 60 days to make full payments of all bills, fees, rents and charges prescribed, failure of which the offers shall become invalid.’’

 On Mass Housing, new reform recognizes the urgent need to issue titles to the beneficiaries of Mass Housing and Sectional Interests but such applications for titling are to be made by the subscribers/developers to the Department of Land Administration for processing.

The mass housing programme was initiated in 2000 to utilise the Public Private Partnership (PPP) strategy with the objective of providing affordable housing for residents of the FCT. 

 But the minister said from the inception of the mass housing programme in 2000 till date, out of the 445 mass housing allocations granted, only two developers have successfully met the terms and conditions.

He said processing of titles for mass housing and sectional interests will commence on April 21, 2025, in line with the new operational framework. 

What you must do to protect your properties

According to a housing expert, Ikeoluwa Imam, any title owner with the FCT R-of-O, should first check the status of the grant rent charges on it with the Abuja Information Geographic System (AGIS) and make payment accordingly.

He said after such payment, no one has the right to revoke such lands, except for the utmost public interest, which in that case, the owners will be adequately compensated and provided with alternative.

“If you are holding an area council title, first go and check with the AGIS if the title has been regularised. If it has been, then proceed to find out the accumulated charges on it and make payment accordingly.

According to him, in the event that the land is not regularised, the owner will have to wait for the fresh regularisation window just announced by the FCT Administration.

Imam, who is a town planner, also advised those having properties with estate developers to approach the FCT lands department to apply for their R-of-Os on their behalf.

The town planner also warned the minister against unnecessary seizure of people’s property in the name of reforms or revenue generation, reminding him of the current economic crisis.

“The minister should not hide under new reform or revenue generation to target people’s properties. One thing he should remember is that nothing lasts forever and his actions will be subjected for review by another minister,’’ he said.

[DailyTrust]

The Gambling Commission in the United Kingdom, on Monday, charged Craig Williams, who was previously the Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire and 14 other people with betting offences related to last year’s general election in the country.

Also charged were Anthony Lee, the former director of Conservative Party campaigning and Russell George, the Welsh Conservative Senedd member for Montgomeryshire.

Former chief data officer for the Conservative Party, Nick Mason, and Laura Saunders, Lee’s wife, were also on the list of 15 names.

An investigation had considered whether people placed bets on a 4 July election as a result of inside knowledge in the days leading up to the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak’s shock announcement of an early poll on 22 May.

The full list of the 15 people charged by the Gambling Commission includes:

Paul Place of Hammersmith, London.

Laura Saunders of Bristol.

James Ward of London.

Craig Williams of Llanfair Caereinion, Welshpool.

Jacob Willmer of Richmond, London.

Simon Chatfield of Lower Bourne, Farnham.

Russell George of Newtown, Wales.

Amy Hind of Loughton, Essex.

Anthony Hind of Loughton, Essex.

Jeremy Hunt of Horne, Horley.

Thomas James of Brecon, Wales.

Charlotte Lang of Brixton, London.

Anthony Lee of Bristol.

Iain Makepeace of Newcastle Upon Tyne.

Nick Mason of Milton on Stour, Gillingham.

Meanwhile, the 15 people are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates Court at 10am on Friday 13 June 2025.

[DailyPost]

For her dedication to achieving the sector-wide goal of 6,000 megawatts in power generation, the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Niger Delta Power Holding Company (NDPHC), Engr. Jennifer Adighije, has been honoured as the Young Achiever of the Year at the 2025 Energy Times Awards.

The award was presented over the weekend at a dinner held in Lagos, according to a press statement released to The Nation yesterday.

Organisers of the award noted that Adighije was selected for her “unwavering commitment to the sector-wide goal of 6,000 megawatts power generation to ensure widespread access to quality electricity.”

Following her appointment in August 2024, Adighije led the restoration of two turbine units that had been offline due to bearing defects, contributing an additional 230MW to the national power grid.

Speaking at the award dinner, Adighije described the honour as a humbling experience, especially for a management team that has been in office for less than a year.

“It’s a very humbling experience for us at NDPHC. As you are aware, we’re a new management. We’ve been in office less than a year. This is a call to work harder,” she said.

Adighije stressed that the new management under her leadership has a clear mandate to scale power generation.

According to her, the NDPHC is the only agency with the express mandate to carry out interventions across the value chain, stressing that her team is not losing focus on the mandate.

“The mandate is very clear to us, which is to scale generation, transmission, and distribution capacity across the power sector. We are the only agency or institution or entity in the power sector with the express mandate to carry out interventions across the entire gas-to-electricity ecosystem. And we’re not losing sight of this,” she stated.

Other awardees at the event are the Governor of Ekiti, Abayomi Oyebanji, as the Energy Governor of the Year; the Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, as the Power Sector Personality of the Year; former Group Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Mele Kyari, as the Man of the Year; the Chief Executive of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, Farouk Ahmed, as the Transformational Leader of the Year; and the CEO of Ikeja Electric, Folake Soetan, who emerged as the Amazon of Nigeria Power Sector.

Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited bagged the Major Oil Company of the Year; Seplat Energy is the Fastest Growing Indigenous Oil Company of the Year; Egbin Power got the Sustainable Development Company of the Year; Heirs Energies is the Outstanding Oil Company of the Year; NNPC spokesman, Olufemi Soneye as honoured with an Award of Excellence, among other recipients.

Trailing 4-0 going into Tuesday’s Champions League quarter-final return home leg against Barcelona, Borussia Dortmund coach Niko Kovac said his side can draw inspiration from Liverpool’s 2018-19 comeback against the same opponents.

In that season, eventual winners Liverpool scored four at Anfield in the return leg to reach the Champions League final, after a 3-0 loss in Catalonia.

Kovac said Barcelona were a better team now than six years ago, but told reporters “miracles happen all the time”.

“We can remember the (Liverpool) game — I can remember it. But that was then and now we’re in 2024-25. We know the situation — we didn’t play well in the first leg,” Kovac said.

“We want to show a different face tomorrow and we want to win. By how much, nobody can say now.

“Miracles happen all the time, but Barcelona have not lost a game in 2025, which makes the challenge much more difficult. It won’t be easy.”

Barcelona’s last loss came on Christmas Eve. Since then, Hansi Flick’s side have won 20 and drawn four matches in all competitions.

Dortmund midfielder Felix Nmecha said his team-mates “believed” in the comeback.

“With our fans behind us, anything is possible. We have to believe in it and we do believe in it,” the 24-year-old German international explained.

Dortmund captain Emre Can did not train on Monday due to “muscular problems” and Kovac said: “We don’t know if he’ll be able to play — it’s quite possible that he will not.”

Kovac, Dortmund’s third coach this season after taking over in January, praised Barcelona’s glittering forward line including Lamine Yamal and Raphinha, but singled out striker Robert Lewandowski.

Lewandowski won two Bundesliga titles and played in the 2013 Champions League final with Dortmund, before spending eight years at Bayern, where he was coached by Kovac.

He won the Champions League in 2020 under Kovac’s successor Flick, now the Barcelona coach.

“He’s a great professional,” the Croatian said. “I’ve seen many good ones. But this guy? He lives, eats, drinks like a pro and does everything possible to stay fit.”

Kovac, known for his focus on training and discipline, said anyone who hugs Lewandowski remarks “wow, what an Adonis”.

Although the rest of Africa seems to have forgotten about the crisis and wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), some scholars, intellectuals and thinkers from the continent are continually engrossed in finding the pathways to resolving the perennial problems in the continent’s largest country. Last weekend, they came together to examine the underlying causes of the conflicts and proffer solutions. It was at a webinar organised by The Pan-African Dialogue Institute (TPADI) on the theme ‘’Invasion of DR Congo: Global interests and implications for pan-Africanism’’ TPADI is an international think tank of African academics, professionals, students, civil society and grassroots leaders in different fields of life within Africa and the Diaspora, coming together for the study, practice, and propagation of Pan-Africanism.

The keynote speaker at the webinar, Prof G. Macharia Munene, is a professor of history and international relations at the United States International University Africa (USIU-A). He has taught in several universities in Europe, America and Africa, and published many articles and books. His academic excellence and advocacy have earned him an award as a UN-recognised expert on decolonisation. Prof. Munene gave a historical account of the Congo crisis, tracing it to the Berlin Conference of 1884, and argued that the country is “the source of both Pan-African agony and Pan-African consciousness”, because of being subjected to military, mercenary, commercial, mineral resource looting, and spiritual invasions.

Congo is geographically a big country and there actually seem to be two countries in one, Eastern and Western Congo. Those in Eastern Congo appear to be closer to East African countries than to Western Congo. To them, the zone around Kinshasa in Western Congo is like a foreign country and Eastern Congo is similarly a foreign country to those in Kinshasa. Congo is rich in strategic minerals and other forms of wealth like rubber and timber. He noted that DRC is similarly a source of African contradictions of extreme wealth in the midst of extreme poverty – a place of attraction for colonisers to extract wealth accompanied by the pain of poverty for African victims of colonialism. It attracts extra-continental adventurers and wealth looters.

Participants at the Berlin Conference, Munene reasoned, achieved two things. First, they partitioned the Congo zone so that the French, the British, the Portuguese, and the Germans each got a piece of the Congo zone. The biggest beneficiary of the partitioning was King Leopold of Belgium who acquired the entire DR Congo as his personal property, to be called ‘Leopold’s Congo’. The second achievement was to agree on how to claim other African territories without fighting. But Congo was set on a path of destruction.

The post-independence killing of Lumumba plunged Congo into Cold War chaos and acted as a warning to other African leaders of what could happen. Leaders of the soon-to-be-independent Kenya took note of those happenings and assured the West that all would be well because thugs would not run the government. Nairobi tried to reconcile the Congolese factions in the 1960s but external forces made sure that the reconciliation would not go far. Mobutu was the main man to be protected by the Western powers in the 1970s even as he looted his country dry. He became so rich and ran his country bankrupt, so much so that he could lend money to his country. He tried derailing the events in Angola, sponsoring Holden Roberto. In his private visits to the US, he still received honoured treatment from US President Jimmy Carter.

Mobutu’s ouster was due to both internal weaknesses as well as external pressure. Internally, he had alienated the Congolese so much that he did not have an army to rely on. He instead relied on mercenaries and mercenaries rarely fight when they should. They simply take the money and move elsewhere. Mobutu’s mercenaries abandoned him to his fate. The external factors involved a coalition of Congolese in exile under Laurent Desire Kabila, a purported follower of Lumumba and who was supported by neighbouring countries such as Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Zambia. Paul Kagame, initially operating from Uganda, came from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda as a saviour. About two million genocide suspects, who escaped to Eastern Congo, endorsed Kabila. And so did Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and other countries which joined the Kabila bandwagon which swept Mobutu out of office into exile in 1997.

With Kabila finally in Kinshasa as president, he changed the country’s name from Mobutu’s Zaire to Democratic Republic of Congo, DR Congo. He also chased his Ugandan and Rwandan supporters from Kinshasa. His bodyguards assassinated him in January 2001. He was succeeded by his son, Joseph Kabila. In addition, the anti-Mobutu allies started quarrelling as each country leader looked after his country’s national interests.

Some of those interests turned out to be exporting gold and other minerals from Eastern Congo. Some like Rwanda and Uganda, exchanged fire in Eastern Congo or, like Uganda and Zimbabwe, exchanging insults as to who was a lackey of the United States. Kabila transferred power to Felix Tshesekedi in 2019 after an election. Several countries have different excuses for having troops in Eastern Congo ranging from security to supporting Felix Tshesikedi’s government against such rebels as M23.

Congo also attracts extra-continental players who propel conflicts in return for access to different types of minerals. They supply the guns to keep the violence going and offer ‘humanitarian’ assistance for the victims. Among the extra-continental players in DR Congo are the EU, China, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, France, and Russia. Tshesekedi, probably observing Ukrainian indecision on giving minerals to Trump’s America, offered to give Trump access to Congolese minerals in return for security. The meeting with Masaad Boulos, advisor to Trump on Africa and the Middle East, who is also an in-law to Trump, reportedly yielded positive results. It might imply a return to the Mobutu days.

Prof Munene concluded that the violence in DR Congo is likely to continue partly because it is not in the perceived interests of the forces that control Congo’s resources such as the mining of the minerals. Those forces subject Congo to various types of invasions ranging from military invasion to commercial as well as beliefs that are designed to dehumanise and enslave people into submission. This is not a new challenge but a long-lasting one that has ravaged Congo for more than 140 years.

Another speaker, Prof. Mutombo Nkulu-N’Sengha, a citizen of DRC and a professor of Religion at California State University, Northridge, USA, is the Vice President of TPADI. In his presentation titled, Geopolitical and Pan-African Approach to the DR Congo Tragedy, he noted that foreign powers have vested interests in the Congo due to its vast mineral deposits. Western powers consider Congo, and indeed Africa, as their properties that can be used however they want, and keeping Africa in perpetual conflicts is part of their strategies for continued exploration and exploitation. Prof Mutombo said although many scholars are suggesting that DRC may be divided into two countries – Western Congo and Eastern Congo – just as the North and South Koreas, he is against demarcation of his native country. For him, the division does not necessarily bring a solution and gave the example of Sudan. Eastern Congo has been in the eye of the storm, he argued, because the largest deposits of minerals are found there. He concluded by calling on all Africans, particularly the Congolese, to rise up, and come together to engage the common enemy, the West.

The third speaker, Dr Peter Wafula Wekesa, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, Archeology and Political Studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya, is a specialist in border community relations, border resources, identity politics, international relations as his main research focus. He is an accomplished academic with many publications to his credit. On DRC, Dr Wekesa believes that border and ethnicity issues may not be unconnected to the instability witnessed in the Congo region. Western Powers, he argues, capitalise on ethnic divisions amongst the Congolese to perpetrate their evil agenda, which is to keep the people under subjugation while they exploit their minerals. He therefore called on Congolese and indeed Africans to talk less about the things that divide them and dialogue more on those things that unite them.

Dr. Francis Khayundi looked at the DRC problems through a legal framework. An Assistant Professor of International Law at the United States International University, Africa, he is also an advocate of the High Court of Kenya. At USIU-Africa, he teaches and researches International Law, International Organisations, Refugee Protection, Human Rights, Governance, Data Protection, and International Relations. According to him, the Berlin Conference and its outcome were related to international law as the Western Powers needed to legitimise their actions in Africa through that conference.

The director of the TPADI Commission on African Politics, Governance and International Relations, Dr. Kakai considered the leadership question and its roles in the DRC crisis. He is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, Archaeology and Political Studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi. Dr Kakai questions the quality of leadership in DRC and wonders if the invasion was as a result of the abundant mineral resources in the country or a result of the collusion between the government and foreign forces. He however insisted that no matter the level of conflict, the country should not be divided; but remain united and find a lasting solution to their problems.

The International President of The Pan African Dialogue Institute (TPADI), and organisers of the webinar, Dr Effiong Udo, thanked the panellists for giving the best of their scholarship in enlightening participants on the invasion of the Congo. He noted that what happens in the Congo was of paramount interest to the institute and should be of concern to everyone in Africa. ‘’As Pan-Africanists, we believe that an Injustice to one African is a tragedy to all Africans”, he said.

He regretted that the natural resources in Congo have become a curse that has sent millions of Congolese children, women and men to their early graves with no end in sight, stating that every blood spilt in Congo by the M23 militants is either feeding the greed of its leaders or enriching the Western contractors. He encouraged all to embrace dialogue, a peaceful and non-violent approach to this conflict against picking arms. According to him, violence has never solved a conflict. He called on the African Union to assist the leaders and citizens of Congo to resolve this prolonged conflict through dialogue and deep thinking or our people will continue to die like fools.