Opinion

Opinion: Pope Francis, Celibacy and the Church

Published

7 years ago

September 10, 2018

Eric

By Nkannebe Raymond

The foundations of the Roman Catholic Church currently curated by the 81 year old Pope Francis is once again, struggling to recover from what has become a familiar tremor. With the findings of a Pennsylvania grand jury last month which in a 900 page report indicted over 300 predator Catholic bishops in the state of serial abuse of some 1000 children in a systematic and organized orgy of abuse that spanned a whopping seven decades, the liberal Pope of “Laudato si” fame, is stewed in his own share of clerical abuse that has worryingly become a recurrent feature of nearly, all papal administrations. Tucked to that, is the pontiff’s alleged conspiracy of silence over the cardinal Theodore MCcarick affair which leaves him battling to redeem himself in what would arguably go down as the greatest controversy of his papacy.

A fortnight ago, during an official visit to Dublin, the first of such papal visit to the city since after John Paul II in 1979, the soft spoken Argentine at a public mass found himself apologizing to the lay Catholics there for the decade long wider clerical sex abuse from Boston to Philadelphia to Dublin and elsewhere. Dublin, the capital of Ireland has been a hot spot of sexual abuse, exploitation of women and pedophile priests. And while over 100,000 lay Catholics lined up the streets to welcome the Pope, protesters and those who have long distanced themselves from Catholicism also made statements of their disaffection with the church with visible placards.

Three months ago, the Pope accepted the resignation of a Chilean Bishop- Juan Barros whom he had staunchly defended earlier in the year despite weighty allegations of cover up of clerical abuse under his watch- a move that would force the pontiff to tender a public apology to the Chilean Catholic community saying he made “grave mistake” by originally defending Bishop Barros.

Barros was among 34 Chillean Bishops who offered to resign in May this year after Pope Francis said the country’s religious hierarchy was collectively responsible for “grave defects” in handling sexual abuse cases and the church’s resulting loss of credibility, following a 2,300 page report that showed that the Catholic hierarchy in Chile systemically covered up and downplayed cases of abuse, destroyed evidence of sexual crimes, discredited accusers and showed “grave negligence” by not protecting the children from paedophile priests.

The isolated case of 88 year old cardinal Theodore McCarick who until his resignation in July, (the first of such resignation of a cardinal since 1927), was already the highest ranking US priest, sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb; and has hightened calls for the pope’s resignation by his conservative critics against the fine traditions of canon law.

Theodore McCarick resigned late July following the findings of the grand jury in Pennsylvania 2 months ago. Until his shameful resignation, McCarick was a parish priest in New York, from where he rose to become an auxiliary Bishop in the city, and then rising to become a Bishop in Metuchen, New Jersey. He was then promoted steadily, first as archbishop of Newark, and later ascending to become archbishop of Washington DC. He left his Washington post on reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75 according to canon law, but remained a vocal voice in the Catholic church and a member of the prestigious college of cardinals which advises the Pope.

In what continues to puzzle pundits and commentators alike, McCarrck’s rise in the Church hierarchy was despite ceaseless allegations and petitions written against him. A state of affairs that feed the conclusion of those who strongly believe that the octopoidal Catholic church has become a cesspit of corruption. Little wonder Pope Francis was once reported to have equated reforming the church, with “cleaning the sphinx of Egypt with a toothbrush”.

The New York Times on the 16th of July reported that the cardinal was repeatedly accused of sexually harassing and inappropriate touching of adult seminary students who were in training to become priests. It was told that he often invited seminarians and young priests to his New Jersey beach house and chose one man to share his bed.

The relationship between Pope Francis and disgraced cardinal McCarrick has in no small measure increased the yoke of Pope Francis. Having influenced his emergence following the conclave of cardinals five years ago, Pope Francis must have found himself unable to rule McCarick and thus allowed him the leeway to do as he pleased. It is said that McCarrick influenced top appointments in the Vatican and even single handedly appointed his successor, cardinal Donald Wuerl who also has come under intense suspicion as part of those running the abuse cult within the Church. It is this atmosphere that must have informed Francis’ refusal to heed the advise of those who warned him about getting too close to McCarrick following allegations of sexual abuse and cover up that became synonyms with his person. Having met his Waterloo with the Pennsylvanian reports, not a few persons have called for the resignation of the Pope for what they termed a “condonnation of corrupt behaviour”.

At the forefront of the calls for the resignation of the Pope is top Vatican diplomat, Archbishop Carlo Mario Vigano, who in a damnifying 11 page testimonial charged that the Church’s leader had been aware of the allegations against McCarrick since 2013 but failed to act on them.

In the words of the conservative cleric who by the way, is no fan of Pope Francis,…” he knew from at least 23 June, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end. Indeed he made McCarrick’s advice his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intensions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of 2 minors, again on the basis of media attention that he took action regarding McCarrick to save his image in the media”. In calling for the resignation of the Holy See, the cardinal enthused, ” Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and Bishops who covered up McCarrck’s abuse and resign along with them…”

Now, for all the weighty allegations raised in Vigano’s “95 theses” of sorts, which he said he was forced to write in order to unburden his conscience, the reaction of the fairly outspoken Pope to them, is one of silence. On his flight back from Ireland, the embattled Holy Father reluctantly responded to Vigano’s testimonials by declaring, “I will not say a single word on this”.

A silence which critics say has not been golden at all given the size of revelations with the full complements of annexures, in Vigano’s letter.

The orgy of clerical abuse that has dogged the Roman Catholic Church since the turn of the 20th century, but with renewed vigour in the last three decades, has become the proverbial albatross around the neck of the Church. And only time would tell if it would eventually become it’s Achilles Heels. The situation is rather complicated by the attitude of a Church that has become an expert in brushing scandals under the carpet and taking sides with its own, as against victims of clerical sexual abuse and molestation. A reenactment of this clerical attitude was recently seen in the disposition of Pope Francis in the case of Bishop Barros, before his mea culpa six months after he was confronted with incontrovertible evidence of the Chilean Bishop’s complicity.

16 years ago, a dark cloud gathered over the Catholic Church when the famous Boston Globe revealed the wide spread wrongdoings in the then Archdiocese of Boston following an investigation that led to the criminal prosecution of Five Roman Catholic Priests. That incident would for the first time thrust the sexual abuse of minors by the clergy into global consciousness. Not a few million dollars was was spent by the Church in the settlement of claims brought by victims of the abuse.

It is not that clerical abuse of minors is a crime peculiar to the American Church. Not at all. Several dioceses across Europe have also had their fair of the social menace that continue to detract from the Catholic Church’s moral authority. For example in 2010, allegations of sexual abuse spread like wildfire across a half dozen countries namely Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Brazil-home of the world’s largest Catholic population.

Whereas Africa has not been put on the global map as a destination of clerical abuse, there is nothing suggesting that it is not to be found in the African Church. The stigma associated with coming out in the open to speak of these things may still be the reason why it has continued to fester unnoticeably for now. As a young seminarian in Zaria, Kaduna state, not a few of my colleagues and seniors alike, were caught indulging in homosexual conducts. While some were expelled by the authorities at the time, others who were absolved of any complicity but who continued in the practice graduated and are Priests today in various dioceses. It is therefore hard to argue that they have not continued in their homosexual escapedes knowing how difficult it is to drop old habits. But that is the limit one would go on that, as far as this piece is concerned.

As I have pointed out before now, what appears to be very troubling in all these, is the tendency of the Church to live in a hurtful denial by taking to an endless defence of its own instead of confronting her demons headlong. It is this attitude that must have helped in no small measure to embolden the sexual predatory elements within the church heirrachy. And which also leaves victims of sexual abuse to live and die with the stigma of abuse knowing before hand that the church would discredit their petitions in order to save it’s face. Or how else does one explain a situation where elements within the church fingered to be complicit in the sexual abuse of minors continue to rise in the church hierarchy?

It is against this backdrop however that the latest reaction of the Pope following the recent scandal that has rocked the church merits some commendation when contrasted to the corporate Vatican reactions to clerical abuse in the past. At a recent ordination of Bishops conducted by the Holy See, he charged some 75 Bishops hailing from 34 countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania to “just say no to abuse-of power, conscience or any type”. “saying no to abuse”, the pontiff said, “means saying no with force to every form of clericalism”.

Yet, it would be foolhardy to suggest that mere admonistions would operate to upend what has almost become an unwritten tradition of the church. This somewhat skeptical position is reinforced by the testimony of Raman Martin, the most senior Roman Catholic figure in Ireland who told The Guardian Uk last month, that abuse was “a systemic issue for the whole church. This is not an isolated issue of 2 bad priests in a particular school or parish. This is an issue where the whole culture of our church wrongly facilitated abuse”. This testimony of the cleric given how much information available to him as a senior member of the Church in Dublin, should give us a picture of what the church is up against. Hence why mere admonitions would be akin to the proverbial slap in the wrist therapy.

Not a few critics of the Roman Catholic Church and even senior members of the Church hierarchy have called for a review of the canon law which would see priests reserve the right to either be celibate or take spouses as with other Christians denominations to the extent that sexual gratification appears to be at the core of predatory clerical behaviour. But celibacy, like Nigeria’s unity, as we are often told, is not negotiable in the Church’s eschatology, at least since the canons of the Elvira Council of the 4th Century made it so.

The position of the Catholic church on celibacy for it’s Priests draws inspiration from both scripture and canon traditions. In St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians as recorded in the book of Ephesians 5: 25-27, the Church was described as the bride of Christ; and in so far as the Latinism: Sacerdotal alter Christus, goes, the priest must remain the Church’s bridegroom in consonance with the teachings of Paul, the apostle. As to be a priest, is to be ‘wedded’ to the Church, there cannot be a question therefore of another marriage for prelates in its most popular sense.

Beyond that, since canon law nominates that the priest is a personification of Christ, it necessarily follows that as Christ lived and died celibate in so far as one can gather from recorded scripture, the priest is invited to live in like manner. With the above biblical and canonical origins of clerical incontinence; howbeit in précis, one tends to get a picture of why the Catholic Church is not given to brook any idea of shifting it’s much criticized position on sexuality and marriage for her priests. A tradition which needless to say remains arguably the most distinctive feature of the prelates of the oldest church on the face of the earth.

But for celibacy to make any scriptural sense, it must come with its moral component on the part of the clergy who entertain the choice of enlisting for the royal priesthood of Christ. If the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church must bask in the euphoria of being Christ’s representatives on earth, the irreducible minimum conduct required of them, would be to live as Christ and the apostles lived. And by this, it is not inferred that the priests must live a life of pure holiness, as scripture makes us appreciate the impossibility of that. But as it relates to total abstinence from sex of all kinds, that should not be open to any debate.

By no means is it suggested that total abstinence from sex is a walk in the park as man continues to struggle with the the lures of the flesh however ascetic they may be. It was Sigmund Freud who it in proper perspective when he observed that “sex is every man’s weakness irrespective of how prudent or puritanical they may be”. Yet, no one says the call to the royal priesthood is an all-comers-affair. The more reason why those who commit to it, must live by it’s base ethical behavioural standards or risk being defrocked.

But where does all of these leave Pope Francis as the head of the church at a very tempestuous era of her history? I do not think that is too far to seek. Beyond the admonitions to members of the clergy to shun all forms of abuse, the Pope must hasten to react to the weighty allegations in Vigano’s letter for two reasons to wit: to make concessions where necessary, and to controvert parts of it that may have veered off into hyperbole. This would serve to limit how much of it is relied upon in the court of public opinion to cast opporobium on the Church. Beyond that, it would set the stage for a healing process of the church assuming it is committed to wiping off this ugly chapter in her history.

The test for Francis therefore who in many respect has changed the negative perception of the church abroad through his liberal posturings in his interventions on controversial subjects namely: climate change; communion for divorced and remarried Catholics; abortion and homosexulity; is whether he can set the all important first foot in front by moving from angling to save the image of the church and tardy acceptance of resignations to actively rooting out abuse and cover ups through an institutionalised network that would cut across the whole spectrum of the Church irrespective of where this corrupt behaviour is found.

There are no pretensions that this would be an easy one for the Pope, but how he handles this particular scandal would make or mar his papal reign.

Nkannebe Raymond writes from Lagos. Comments and reactions to raymondnkannebe@gmail.com

Opinion

AKPoti-AKPabio Saga: Standing Justice on Its Head

Published

5 days ago

March 11, 2025

Eric

By Ayo Oyoze Baje

“There are several court rulings, including that of the Court of Appeal, each of which deems it illegal to suspend an elected member of the legislature. The recent suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti – Uduaghan is therefore, the height of legislative recklessness” – Femi Falana SAN

When and where might – is – right, as amply demonstrated by the recent outrageous and illegal suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the Red Chamber – without salary or allowances – it does not only question the authority on which the lawmakers stand to carry out their statutory functions but ridicules the manner of democracy we practise here in Nigeria. And if the wrong done is not righted within the shortest possible time, it goes further to de-brand our so called democratic structure that places overt power of the jungle mantra of might – is – right on the elected representatives of the people above the wishes of the led majority. That indeed, is both an aberration and a legislative anomaly, triggered by the senator’s suspension, hence the outrage it has so far evolved. But let us first take an objective analysis of the drama that led to the development.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan ‘s suspension took place after she submitted a petition alleging being sexually harassed by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. After dismissing her petition on procedural ground the Ethics Committee, as led by Neda Imasuen ( Labour Party, Edo South) recommended her suspension for six months claiming that she brought ”

public opprobrium” to the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly. Though some members wanted the suspension reduced to three months, 14 members of the Committee stood by their decision, insisting that Natasha did not attend the investigative hearing to defend herself. In fact, they went further to ask her to tender an apology to the same Senate President Akpabio she has accused of sexual harassment, for her outburst during the plenary session!

Expectedly, the steamy situation has sparked off some flaming questions with regards to the rule of law under such circumstances. For instance, is it not her inalienable right to reject the sitting arrangement, which was surreptitiously meant to relegate her to the legislative shadows? Good enough, the answer is not far -fetched. According to Natasha’s legal counsel, Victor Giwa the Nigerian constitution of 1999, (as amended) supersedes the Senate’s Standing Orders. Specifically, Section 6, Sub-Section (6) of that constitution grants every citizen the right to seek redress in court when their civil rights are violated. Incidentally, she has done so, with her knowledge of the law.

The next question has to do with the best of ways to handle a delicate matter such as this. Should the matter not have been made open by placing it before an independent panel, to investigate and make recommendations in the interest of justice? That is, instead of slamming Natasha for having the gut, the temerity and audacity to express her complaints at the Senate chamber? According to Giwa the suspension of his client is definitely a brazen attempt to silence her. But unfortunately, for those behind it all it has only emboldened her to seek for justice going through the right process. In Giwa’s words: “The Committee disobeyed a valid court order that was served on them, making a mockery of the chamber that is supposed to uphold the law”. That should serve as food-for-thought for the masterminds behind the illegal suspension of the senator.

That perhaps, aptly explains why the Nigeria Bar Association ( NBA) has slammed the Senate by not giving her, the complainant to present her sexual harassment claim against Akpabio. That reminds us of the odious ” off the mic ” scenario that has played out each time an issue of public interest is being denied an objective investigation. The lawmakers, especially those who are bent on attempting to paper over cracks, or give a person a bad name to hang him or her must be reminded that there is a court order restraining the Senate from taking an action on the matter, pending the determination of of s motion on notice. The mishandling of the matter at hand by the senators is what has emboldened Natasha’s lawyer, Giwa to declare her suspension as ” null and void”. Yet, he is not the only person to outrightly condemn the illegality that has evolved so far.

The world acclaimed Women Rights activist, Hadiza Ado described Natasha’s suspension as amounting to a “,sad day for Nigerian women”. On its part the Socio–Economic Rights and Accountability Project ( SERAP ) has described it as “patently unlawful”and a clear violation of her right to freedom of speech. The organization has therefore, called on the Senate President Akpabio to reinstate her without further delay or face their legal action against such oddity. Similarly, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP to which Natasha belongs has described as her suspension as am attempt by the Senate ” to cover up an issue”. That is according to the National Publicity Secretary, Debbo Ologunagba.So, what really could it be?

It would be recalled that on February 28, 2025 right on ARISE television, Natasha made a bold allegation of sexual harassment against the Senate President Akpabio.While some concerned Nigerians wondered why she went as far as that point of publicity, others knowing fully well about her background as an Ihima- born lady brought up with high moral standards would not kowtow to, be cowed by anyone, or acquiesce to the weird and wild emotional inclinations of a man for whatever reasons.

So, as the AKPoti -AKPabio saga rolls out, the lesson to learn is for people to always strike the delicate balance between the Motive and the Method of our utterances and actions. And of course, the brand we want to be recognized and stand for in our chequered journeys on Planet Earth. Of great significance also is the piece of admonition by Natasha’s legal counsel, Giwa, that: ” The Senate must abide by international best practices” all because the world is watching us.

Opinion

The Trump-Vance Approach to Zelensky and the Emergence of a New World Order

Published

1 week ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

By Magnus Onyibe

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

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

In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump went further, saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion

On the Suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan: A Grave Injustice and a Desperate Smear Campaign

Published

1 week ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

By Senator Ojudu Babafemi

The decision of the Nigerian Senate to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for raising allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is deeply troubling and unjustifiable. While I take no position on the veracity of her claim, the fundamental principle of fairness demands that Akpabio should not have presided over a case in which he was personally implicated. It was his duty to step aside and allow his deputy to handle the matter impartially. By failing to do so, he compromised the integrity of the Senate and reinforced the perception of institutional bias against women who dare to speak up.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not one to be dismissed lightly. I had the opportunity to interact with her in an official capacity while serving in the presidency, and I can attest that she is a woman of immense strength, intelligence, and purpose. She is not frivolous, nor is she someone who can be easily intimidated. Her journey in Kogi State has been marked by monumental struggles and persecution, yet she has remained unwavering in her commitment to her people. Her grassroots connection is undeniable, and her dedication to uplifting her constituency is evident in her relentless advocacy.

Beyond the unjust suspension, what is even more disgraceful is the rash of hired protesters in both Abuja and Akwa Ibom, clearly orchestrated to malign her. These so-called protests are glaringly artificial, a poorly executed charade that insults the intelligence of Nigerians. It is evident to the world that these are not spontaneous expressions of public sentiment but paid theatrics aimed at discrediting a strong woman who refuses to be silenced. The fact that such desperate measures are being deployed only signals that someone has something to hide. This playbook is cheap, nauseating, and frankly, an embarrassment to any society that claims to uphold democratic values.

But history has shown that truth and justice always prevail. This suspension is nothing more than a temporary setback. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan will emerge from this even stronger, her resilience further cementing her place as a formidable politician and conscientious public servant. Meanwhile, those orchestrating this smear campaign will find their names recorded in the book of infamy—a stark reminder of those who stood on the wrong side of history.

Nigeria deserves a legislative chamber where justice is not only done but seen to be done. The Senate must correct this grave injustice and ensure that no lawmaker, especially a woman, faces persecution for speaking out.